Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Conrad : Is 3-point shot viable weapon for the pacers?

  1. #1
    Team Raskolnikov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Ghent, Belgium
    Age
    29
    Posts
    4,596

    Default Conrad : Is 3-point shot viable weapon for the pacers?

    http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/question.html


    Is 3-Point Shot Viable Weapon For Pacers?



    Monday, Jan. 9, 2006
    If you'd like to pose a Question of the Day to Conrad Brunner, submit it along with your full name and hometown to Bruno's_mailbag@pacers.com. Brunnerís opinions are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of Pacers players, coaches or management.
    QUESTION
    OF THE DAY

    Conrad Brunner

    Q. The Pacers have attempted 563 3-point shots while their opponents have attempted 399. Indiana ranks 10th of 15 Eastern Conference teams in 3-point percentage. It seems like the 3-point shot is not a viable strategy for this team to win ballgames. Is the large number of 3-pointers the result of broken plays turning into shooting against the shot clock, or by offensive design? (From Keith in Long Beach, Calif.)

    A. Of the statistical indicators of team performance, few have been more telling than 3-point percentage. In the last 11 victories, the Pacers have shot 44.7 percent from the arc. In the last 10 losses, they've shot 24.6 percent. It's clear, then, that the 3-point shot has been a very important part of the offensive attack. But it hasn't been a matter of how many they're taking, it's the circumstances that lead to the shot.
    There are few circumstances under which the 3-point shot is the first option in any of the offensive sets. The idea is to work the post, either with Jermaine O'Neal or, as has developed lately, Stephen Jackson. Assuming the defense is forced to collapse inside, something will be open outside. If the ball is rotated crisply, somebody should wind up with an open shot, often from the 3-point line. In the last two games, particularly, the offense has gone according to that script and the team has shot very well from long range.
    The Pacers have run into problems when they lose discipline within the offense and take the first jumper available, rather than moving the ball around, probing the interior of the defense either in the post or via penetration. They've also tended, after falling into a bit of a hole, to try to shoot their way out of it, which rarely works. With Sarunas Jasikevicius, Jackson and Austin Croshere, the Pacers have high-quality 3-point shooters. Fred Jones and Jamaal Tinsley can get into a rhythm and be effective from the perimeter, although both are better when attacking the basket. The 3-pointer should remain an important weapon in the arsenal, as long as the shot develops within the context of the offense.

    Word on the street is he doesn't want your money, he only wants to please your ears...
    Bum in Berlin on Myspace

  2. #2
    Team Raskolnikov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Ghent, Belgium
    Age
    29
    Posts
    4,596

    Default Re: Conrad : Is 3-point shot viable weapon for the pacers?

    That about sums up the Pacers (problems on) offense I think.
    Word on the street is he doesn't want your money, he only wants to please your ears...
    Bum in Berlin on Myspace

  3. #3
    Jimmy did what Jimmy did Bball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,901

    Default Re: Conrad : Is 3-point shot viable weapon for the pacers?

    There are few circumstances under which the 3-point shot is the first option in any of the offensive sets. The idea is to work the post, either with Jermaine O'Neal or, as has developed lately, Stephen Jackson. Assuming the defense is forced to collapse inside, something will be open outside. If the ball is rotated crisply, somebody should wind up with an open shot, often from the 3-point line.
    There needs to be quicker, and of course better, decisions made by the interior players (read: JO) when the ball goes inside. The ball does not need to stay inside on the first 'dump it in' play, nor does the player catching the ball on it coming back out necessarily need to take the shot. He can pass it around if the defense reacts and it's possible to even probe the inside a second time.

    But in any case, quicker decisions with the ball are required. Not dominating it when you get it.



    -Bball
    Nuntius was right. I was wrong. Frank Vogel has retained his job.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."

    -John Wooden

  4. #4
    Team Raskolnikov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Ghent, Belgium
    Age
    29
    Posts
    4,596

    Default Re: Conrad : Is 3-point shot viable weapon for the pacers?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bball
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    But in any case, quicker decisions with the ball are required. Not dominating it when you get it.
    Indeed, and the key to that is ball AND player movement. But as has been said before, I guess that depends on what the coach wants the players to do (at least I hope so).
    Word on the street is he doesn't want your money, he only wants to please your ears...
    Bum in Berlin on Myspace

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •